DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
(1) Consumer Complaint No.124 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Mrs. Shakuntala wife of Iqbal Singh, resident of House No.190-B, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(2) Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Kuldeep Singh son of Late Kirpal Singh, resident of House No.3216, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(3) Consumer Complaint No.126 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Mrs. Birbala wife of Suresh Kumar, resident of House No.1736-A, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(4) Consumer Complaint No.127 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Rajinder Kumar son of Brij Mohan, resident of House No.3216, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(5) Consumer Complaint No.128 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Shamsher Singh son of Zile Singh, resident of House No.1278, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(6) Consumer Complaint No.129 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Sanjay Kumar son of Babu Ram Bhardwaj, resident of House No.3310-B, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(7) Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Subhash Chander son of Narinder Nath, resident of House No.3210, Sector 24-D, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(8) Consumer Complaint No.131 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Mrs. Ranjana Shrivastava wife of Ram Mohan Bhatnagar, resident of House No.5659, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
(9) Consumer Complaint No.132 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.03.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2016
Rajinder Kant son of Kewal Krishan, resident of House No.2245, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Torna Holidays having its Registered office at 2014, Krishna Mall, Plot No.5, Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 through its Managing Director.
2nd Address:
M/s. Torna Holidays, Branch Office, 932, Phase 3B2, Mohali District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. Jaipreet Kaur c/o M/s. Torna Holidays having its Registered office at 2014, Krishna Mall, Plot No.5, Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.
3. Satnam Singh c/o M/s. Torna Holidays having its Registered office at 2014, Krishna Mall, Plot No.5, Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaints under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Ajay Singh Gurah, counsel for the complainants.
Capt. Arun Sharma, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
By this common order, we are disposing of above said nine complaints as all are having same controversy as well as similar question of facts and law.
The common facts are that the complainants on the allurement of OP No.2 and 3 booked a trip from Chandigarh to Port Blair from 25.12.2014 to 31.12.2014. The complainants deposited their initial booking amount through NEFT in the account of OP No.1. After paying the initial booking amount, the complainants were in touch with OP No.2 and 3 regarding the booking of trip. OP No.2 and 3 kept on assuring the complainants that the tickets are available and these would be booked soon. However, in December, 2014 the OP No.2 and 3 informed the complainants that the seats were not available. On asking of the complainants, the OP No.2 and 3 assured that the booking amount would be refunded within few days. However, OP No.2 and 3 thereafter started making lame excuses that the business is not going smoothly and did not make refund of the booking amount. The complainants then made a complaint dated 19.12.2015 to the SSP, Chandigarh which was marked to SHO, PS Sector 24, Chandigarh. Then the OPs deposited the total initial booking amount in the accounts of some of the complainants and in the case of some of the complainants part of initial booking amount was deposited in their accounts. The complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs but they did not care to reply to the same. The complainants have pleaded that they have suffered mental agony and harassment due to the acts of the OPs. Hence the present complaints for direction to the OPs to pay to the complainants compensation for harassment, mental tension and also costs of litigation.
3. The complaints have been contested by the OPs by filing identical written versions in which they have pleaded that the complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands. The OPs have office at Delhi only and how a branch office has been shown in the second address is not known to the OPs. This address has been mentioned just to create jurisdiction of this Forum. The OPs have no reference or address as mentioned therein. The complainants are not consumer as LTC is a benefit given to the officials for which payment is made by the Govt. The complainants themselves have admitted that OP No.2 has met them at Chandigarh and discussed the matter. The complainants have paid only initial booking amount and have not paid the total amount. The tickets were to be arranged for them only after deposit of total payment. The OPs have reminded the complainants several times to deposit the balance amount but till November end they did not make the balance amount which resulted in cancellation of booking. The OPs have admitted that the complainants have made complaint to the SSP, Chandigarh but have pleaded that this complaint was made on false and frivolous facts. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaints.
4. In order to prove their case, the parties led their respective evidence.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. He has argued that the OPs have no office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The address of OP No.1 which is shown in Phase-3B, Mohali does not belong to OP No.1. OP No.2 and 3 have met the complainants at Chandigarh and even the complainants have filed a complaint against the OPs to the SSP, Chandigarh which was marked to Sector 24, Police Station, Chandigarh. As such no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(2010)1 SCC 135 elaborately discussed that where the complaint can be filed on the basis of arising of cause of action. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under;
“In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.”
Similarly the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Raj Kumar Dhiman Vs M/s.Automotives Pvt Ltd & Anr, Revision petition No.2290 of 2012 decided on 19/2/2013 and in another case M/s.Stan Auto Pvt.Ltd Vs Beant Singh passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in FA No.881 of 2012 decided on 30.9.2013, the view taken was that the jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of actual residential, business and working place of OP.
7. As regards to the facts of the present complaints, the complainants themselves have mentioned in their complaints that all the discussions about the trip from Chandigarh to Port Blair were held at Chandigarh and the payments of initial booking has also been made from Chandigarh. Even after cancellation of trip, the complainants had filed a complaint to SSP, Chandigarh which was then marked to Sector 24, Police Station. Further the OPs had also made whole or part payment of booking amount to the complainants at Chandigarh.
8. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussions and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaints, as no actual transactions had taken place between the parties at Mohali. Hence without going into the merits of the case, we direct that the present complaints be returned to the complainants, with liberty to seek redressal of their grievances before the appropriate Court/Fora having territorial jurisdiction.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 06.12.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
